Toronto’s board of health urged the province Wednesday to fund a controversial safe-injection pilot program in the city, despite renewed objections from Mayor Rob Ford.

The board, chaired by left-leaning councillor Joe Mihevc, also adopted a staff recommendation calling on the federal government to ease countrywide restrictions on the development of safe-injection sites.

PETER KUITENBROUWER /NATIONAL POSTCouncillor Joe Mihevc.

The vote came as Mayor Ford vowed he would never support a safe-injection site in Toronto, telling reporters at a Pan Am Games event “the taxpayers obviously don’t want that.”

Proponents on the board, however, cited several public-health benefits to the proposed program, including a reduction in both overdose deaths and the transmission of diseases such as HIV.

“We have to be very, very clear that we do expect the province of Ontario to make some kind of a statement on this.”

Darren Calabrese / National Post files Councillor Gord Perks.

Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, who said residents in her ward have found syringes in playgrounds, added the city has been grappling with the issue “on the edges.”

“This is a large boulder to push up a very steep hill and it comes with a lot of stigma, [but] I believe that Toronto will do the right thing,” she said.

Councillor Raymond Cho, who voted against the majority, was heckled by the assembled crowd when he suggested there may be other options to address Toronto’s drug-use problems and residents should be consulted.

“Everybody talks about the positive side but we don’t know the negative side,” Mr. Cho said.

Tyler Anderson/National Post/FilesCouncillor Raymond Cho.

His comments were overshadowed by supporters of safe-injection sites, which — while designed to provide a hygienic and supervised environment for drug users to inject pre-obtained drugs — have been criticized as legitimizing illegal drug use.

“Closing our eyes to the need doesn’t make our communities safer,” said Dr. Doris Grinspun, head of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario.

Russ Ford, executive director of the LAMP Community Health Centre, cited an “obligation” to protect the lives of drug users: “We don’t like the behaviour, but it exists.”

The board, which is made up of councillors and residents, ultimately adopted two recommendations: to ask the province to pay to integrate supervised injection services “on a pilot basis” with Toronto’s existing, provincially funded clinical health services; and to formally oppose Bill C-65, federal legislation that lays out strict requirements for the operation of safe-injection sites.

Asked whether Ontario would consider funding a pilot site in Toronto, Health Minister Deb Matthews said safe-injection sites “aren’t something that we’re moving forward with right now, but we do believe in an evidence-based approach to harm reduction.”

Aaron Lynett/National PostHealth Minister Deb Matthews.

In Canada, safe-injection sites must operate with a federally granted exemption from Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs &amp; Substances Act (CDSA) or risk criminal sanctions.

Bill C-65, the Respect for Communities Act, outlines what critics call a cumbersome process for obtaining the exemption, including mandated police background checks for people applying to work at the clinics.

“The requirements in the bill are onerous and there is no indication as to what level of information or support is needed for a successful application,” said Dr. David McKeown, Toronto’s medical officer of health.

“If the bill is passed as currently drafted, health services seeking to implement supervised injection will have great difficulty meeting the requirements for a CDSA exemption.”

Although many people are uncomfortable at the prospect of having a safe-injection site in their neighbourhood, Dr. McKeown added, injection drug use “exists throughout Toronto, exists in every neighbourhood.”

Councillor Mike Del Grande resigned as budget chief Wednesday after city council passed its 2013 budget, added $12-million in spending along the way. He spoke to the Post‘s Natalie Alcoba about the turning point, accomplishments and unsolved mysteries of the universe.

QWas there a moment in which you decided, time to go?

Del Grande There were two moments, one way before the budget process in the 22 to 22 vote to remove my name from the Toronto Police Services Board. I was not happy with that. I thought after all the hard work, I was deserving of that posting to deal with the largest budget we had and 22 said no. I said that motion 1D [about transparency of the budget process] was personal, I spoke to that, and to a money motion and I said to them, basically, don’t do this. Compared to [Councillor Joe] Mihevc and the gang in the previous administration, I had more transparency than they could ever dream of. So, the hell with it. I’m dealing in a milieu of being in a minority government, I didn’t have the privilege of David Miller having the solid 23 votes to push anything I wanted. Every single thing I wanted to do was a constant fight and in spite of all that, the right things were done. Then they come out and they discount it. No credit at all. Then to be vilified along the way, what’s the point? I’m leaving on a high. I’ve given up a lot birthdays, holidays, my mother’s ill.

Del Grande We made firsts. First police budget zero increase; first time spending less than previous year; first time not using prior-year surplus. I could have had first time not using any reserves, but they did a political budget that wouldn’t let me get to that stage. First time managing the debt to the condition we had. Then on a whim, they want to give the TTC $5-million, no logic, no rhyme, no reason. How many times do I have to tell you that you don’t have any room on the credit card, that you have to pay down the credit card to add the next purchase on the credit card. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go into next year with a 4% tax increase, or they are going to take their surpluses.

QWhat did you think of the mayor during this budget session?

Del Grande The mayor was the mayor. It’s one of the unsolved mysteries of the universe.

QWhat do you mean by that?

Del Grande You just never know. Whatever you want to ask that relates to him, I can’t provide a logic for you. You have to ask him. I sometimes shrug my shoulders.

QAre you talking about his decision to vote for a tax freeze after advocating for a 2% hike?

Del Grande I don’t think he understands or understood the nuances of what he did, but that’s him. That’s him. While he supported 2% [in the end], if there was the opportunity that 23 people would vote for zero, I told him that was impractical. Rob, it took me 8 months to get to this point, you think in 24 hours I’m going to find $46-million? It’s nice to have that removed off my shoulders. I’m not leaving a loser, that I didn’t do the job. I’ve done the job, I left on a high. Now I can get on to my core root, my constituency. Time to get back and not have to worry about cabinet solidarity, for lack of a better word.

QAre you talking about members of the mayor’s own executive who pushed to hire firefighters?

Del Grande There were people on the mayor’s team that went with emotion rather than substance. Doug Holyday was right. His speech could have been my speech. The chief said he had the efficiencies to run the fire services with no change from the prior year.

QDo you still support the mayor and his agenda?

Del Grande I support the agenda, I don’t know if that means supporting the mayor. But I thought the other alternatives [in the election] were more of the same of the seven years that we already had.

QSome of Mayor Ford’s critics say there are cracks in the mayor’s camp. Are you a crack?

Del Grande I’m not a crack, the agenda is still supported. This is the agenda that is under this term. The next election is a brand new slate. If there are candidates that can carry that same mandate, you weigh your options about what has been promised.

QAny regrets?

Del Grande The fact is I’m a man of my word and I go on principle. That’s the way I’ve been trained, that’s the way I am. It’s not because I want to threaten. People thought I was blowing smoke. I gave them the opportunity, I stood up and I told them. They do it on emotion. Mihevc can say all he wants to [about mayor’s support]. That’s their spin, I hold them accountable for dragging their feet. The session that I was involved in has always been about the mayor, take him down at all cost. I’m surprised that he is still standing. I would have packed it in a long time ago if I had been the mayor.

This interview was condensed and edited for clarity.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/the-mayor-was-the-mayor-its-one-of-the-unsolved-mysteries-of-the-universe-resigning-toronto-budget-chief-mike-del-grande-on-rob-ford/feed3stdMike Del Grande listens to a speaker during the second day of public deputations to the city budget committee at Toronto's city hall, Thursday evening, December 8, 2011.CLICK TO ENLARGEThe List dressed up as ‘cronyism,’ ‘witch hunt’ at City Hallhttp://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/the-list-dressed-up-as-cronyism-witch-hunt-at-city-hall
http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/the-list-dressed-up-as-cronyism-witch-hunt-at-city-hall#commentsThu, 01 Nov 2012 07:14:46 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=228101

COMMENT

City councillors spent another day on Wednesday dealing with matters pertaining to ombudsman Fiona Crean, whose two-year reappointment on Tuesday, we were told by Doug Ford, signals a more “mature” Mayor Rob Ford — that is, because he didn’t insist on canning her after she released a report suggesting interference by the Mayor’s office in the civic appointment process.

Wednesday, council dealt with a follow-up report that unearthed a list of what appears to be the Mayor’s preferred appointees to bodies such as the Port Authority, Library Board and the Police Services Board. The Mayor’s opponents insist The List is proof of “cronyism,” to use Adam Vaughan’s term, and of a “corrupted” process, to use Joe Mihevc’s.

Related

The Mayor insists it isn’t even a list of his preferred candidates. “The first time I saw the list was today. I knew three names on the list…. It’s all politics from the left wing.”

His comments came after four-and-a-half hours of councillors hurling accusations, counter-accusations and countless points of personal privilege at each other. At last, they had The List. Blood would be spilled. Edifying, it was not.

Janet Davis declared herself “vindicated.” It was, she said, precisely and undoubtedly The List she had seen on the desks of certain councillors — she wouldn’t say which — at the Civic Appointments Committee, where all this began. Frances Nunziata, chair of said committee, responded that Ms. Davis “didn’t see squat,” and noted that her snooping had seen her ejected from the meeting.

Kristyn Wong-Tam and Mike Layton discovered that all but two of the people on the list had been shortlisted for the positions in question, and that 72% of them had been appointed. Coincidence, they think not. They also suggested there was a correlation between the names on The List and donors to a certain political campaign — they wouldn’t say which, hint, hint. (Mayor Ford said later that if any of the names on The List contributed to his campaign, it would have been after the fact — such as at the debt-clearing Harmony Dinner.)

Doug Ford noted that several of the candidates had not been appointed. (“This is the special list?” he asked, mock-incredulously.) But in any event, he would not apologize “for appointing fiscal conservative people.” Denzil Minnan-Wong suggested that, list or no list, mayors manage to get like-minded people on their boards and committees. Ms. Nunziata accused former Mayor David Miller of “interfering every day” in the appointments process. Ms. Davis and Mr. Mihevc nearly swooned in indignation as they rose to object.

Giorgio Mammoliti added to his rhetorical hall of fame. He again accused the Ombudsman’s report of being politically motivated. Ms. Nunziata, in her role as speaker, asked him to back off. “If you want to insult members of council, that’s fine,” she added, to much mirth. Mr. Mammoliti denied he had said anything untoward. Ms. Nunziata asked him to clarify, so he did: “There’s a witch hunt at City Hall on Halloween.”

Soon, Mr. Mammoliti was waving The List in the air. “There’s nothing attached to this except innuendo by this council chamber. On Halloween!” he bellowed. “Councillor Davis talks about pieces of paper! Hello? We’re at City Hall! There are a lot of pieces of paper on our desk! Every day! Attach it to innuendo, attach it to Halloween, and the witch hunts after the Mayor’s office.

“What are you doing here?” he asked of all and sundry to his political left. “Seriously. People’s curbs are not fixed. The roads are not paved properly. We’ve got issues with recreation. We’ve got issues with transit. We need subways in this city. And on Halloween, you’re creating a witch hunt.

“Where’s your candy tonight? You bring it in with you today with your antennas?” (He was referring to Pam McConnell’s Halloween headgear.) “You did, you did. Wonderful. Let’s all leave at 4:30 and go trick-or-treating.”

“We’ve done nothing, and it’s 12:30!” Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday lamented as council prepared to break for lunch. And he was right. In fact, all they did with the Ombudsman’s report was shout about it for a few hours, and then accept it unanimously. It would be up to the media or an “arm’s-length” body such as the integrity commissioner to take the matter further, Mr. Mihevc said later. One wonders if he mightn’t have called her himself, rather than spending the day impugning the reputations of civic appointees who, for all we know, are indeed the best people for the job.

Council took much less time in the afternoon to discuss and accept Ms. Crean’s latest report, into how the Toronto Transit Commission planned to expropriate several homes to build new subway entrances without bothering to tell their owners about it. It’s precisely the sort of outrage that, in theory, made Ms. Crean “a natural ally to hold the bureaucrats at bay” — as none other than Nick Kouvalis Tweeted on Wednesday. Alas, that ship sailed long ago.

City councillors Josh Matlow and Joe Mihevc believe Casa Loma should be a city museum and make their pitch in the following open letter.

Future options for Casa Loma will be on the Oct. 2 council agenda regarding the future of Casa Loma, presenting a historic opportunity for a bold repurposing of one of our city’s most iconic landmarks.

As the local councillors for Casa Loma, we support the Executive Committee’s recommendations to explore more creative, and revenue-generating, options for its operation.

Related

However, we believe that a Toronto Museum should be included for consideration as part of the Request for Proposal as it would complement and benefit the existing and potential uses of Casa Loma through increased visitation. Moreover, the addition of a museum has the potential to attract high-end donors to refurbish the adjacent properties and provide a portion of the $18-million backlog in necessary capital repairs.

With Dupont station steps away and its close proximity to the downtown core, Casa Loma provides an ideal location for a Toronto Museum. The landmark is also steps away from the Spadina House Museum and the City Archives, creating a potential heritage corridor for students, researchers, tourists and other visitors.

A Toronto Museum within Casa Loma and its adjacent properties would fill a deep void in our cultural landscape, improve the feasibility of the existing uses while expanding opportunities for new investment and donations in a unique structure and location.

Now is the right time to move forward with a new cultural institution that will protect and share our city’s heritage and Casa Loma provides the ideal space for it

Great cities celebrate, protect and share their heritage in places of living history where residents can learn about their home and visitors can be introduced to a new place. For decades, successive councils and prominent residents have done significant work toward the creation of a museum for our city. I know many of you have done significant work toward this cause.

The most recent site designated for this purpose is unfortunately no longer available. Staff has confirmed that Old City Hall will be renewing and expanding its lease with the province beyond 2016 for courts and ancillary purposes.

Casa Loma and its adjacent properties contain adequate space for a Toronto Museum that could house a permanent collection and rotating exhibits. For example, if the first floor and second floor of Casa Loma were to be reserved for the Pellatt family exhibit and high-end event space, the needed room for a city collection could be found in the basement and 3rd floors of the main building in addition to the Hunting Lodge and Stables connected to Casa Loma by a tunnel that runs under the street. The total area of these under-utilized spaces is 57,400 sq. ft.

The staff report also identified 7,500 sq. ft. of office and storage space that could be partially located elsewhere. As well, the land surrounding the stables and the Hunting Lodge provide an opportunity for additions and complementary structures to both buildings. Canadian cities such as Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal have city museums. In fact, altogether, the potential exhibit space available at Casa Loma is larger than the successful Montreal City museum (Centre d’histoire de Montreal) which is only 8,018 sq. ft. However, cities such as Chicago and New York have much larger museums — we’ve learned that there’s no one size that fits all.

Now is the right time to move forward with a new cultural institution that will protect and share our city’s heritage and Casa Loma provides the ideal space for it. We have an opportunity to house our historical home; breathing new life into both.

We hope that you will support our request on Oct. 2 to explore the potential of this exciting opportunity — for our city’s history and Casa Loma’s future.

On their way to another significant victory over the forces of the Rob Ford administration, Councillor Joe Mihevc, a stalwart of the left, spoke about the ills of contracting out city cleaning jobs to a company that pays lower wages.

It is not, he argued, about “union jobs,” but rather a “fundamental issue of social justice.” A few seats away, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday used his hands to imply his political opponent’s nose was growing, like Pinocchio.

Later, the deputy mayor, a stalwart of the right, could barely contain his frustration at what is clearly Mayor Rob Ford’s slipping grasp of the City Hall agenda.

Related

“The right never had control of City Hall. There’s no doubt about that,” the deputy mayor lamented, before council dealt a blow to the Mayor’s outsourcing endeavors. “At least with Rob Ford the political will to try is there, whether he controls enough votes on council is another matter. But it’s not his fault if he doesn’t, people who were here were duly elected,” he said. “My advice to the taxpayer is don’t send us any more activists, don’t send us any more unionists, don’t send us any more cyclists. Send us some people down here with good common sense who just want to manage the city’s affairs. That’s what is needed.”

‘My advice to the taxpayer is don’t send us any more activists, don’t send us any more unionists, don’t send us any more cyclists’

City council voted, by a margin of 29 to 12, to send any future cleaning contracts through political channels, instead of a staff committee, for approval, a move hardcore Ford allies said interferes with their pursuit of a leaner, more affordable operation. It also decided to review a contract staff had already awarded for the cleaning of 25 police stations to see if it should be renewed after the first year, restrict subcontracting out, and demand that a company’s employment and health and safety record is checked out before other work is awarded.

The vote spread, one of the largest on an issue that is central to the Mayor’s mandate, saw left and middle councillors once again band together to defeat Mr. Ford, boosted by the support of fiscal conservatives such as Karen Stintz.

Mayor Ford said he would talk to reporters “later”, while his brother Councillor Doug Ford downplayed the loss.

Councillor Paula Fletcher dismissed the deputy mayor’s comments as that of a “cranky” politician on the losing end of a vote.

Councillor Pam McConnell crafted the winning motion, and handed it off to centrist councillor Ana Bailao, who raised concerns about the company that won the police station bid because it had violated city policy in the past.

That contract saves the city about $1-million a year. City staff said city cleaners are paid about $26 an hour, or $32 when benefits are factored in, which amounts to about $49,000 a year, or $64,000 with benefits. The market rate is about $17 an hour.

Impact, the company that won the contract for police stations, can pay its cleaners between $12.20 and $10.66, with benefits, an hour, according to the city’s fair wage policy.

“I can tell you the family impact that this has,” said a teary-eyed Councillor Bailao, who cleaned downtown offices with her mom for two years when she first immigrated from Portugal, at the age of 15. “It’s not only about money, it’s making sure that the companies we’re dealing with respect their employees. That we’re not exploiting illegal immigrants, that we’re not letting them exploit illegal people. It’s doing the right thing in here.”

She insists that this vote does not close the door to contracting out, and that some councillors who voted for additional oversight would still agree to outsourcing if the right proponent came along. She agreed, however, that council has placed more hurdles in the way.

“When you think about the fact that the money we’re saving on these cleaning contracts is equivalent to the bonuses that we’re paying to Build Toronto [executives], it just makes you pause and think are we finding the right savings and the right way, is that the right gravy?” said Councillor Karen Stintz, who earlier this year went undercover at the TTC on a cleaning shift for a television program.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/toronto-council-deals-a-blow-to-rob-fords-effort-to-outsource-staff/feed4std“The right never had control of City Hall. There’s no doubt about that,” Doug Holyday said Wednesday.City councillor wants third party to determine if controversial St. Clair project was a waste of moneyhttp://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/city-councillor-wants-third-party-to-determine-if-controversial-st-clair-project-was-a-waste-of-money
http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/city-councillor-wants-third-party-to-determine-if-controversial-st-clair-project-was-a-waste-of-money#commentsFri, 30 Mar 2012 23:41:43 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=157216

Tired of Mayor Rob Ford and his brother slagging the St. Clair Right-of-Way, a city councillor wants the TTC to hire an outside consultant to determine, once and for all, if the controversial project was a waste of money.

Councillor Joe Mihevc, a strong proponent of the line that courses through his ward, says there is a lot of misinformation floating around about a project that climbed from an initial $48-million, to over $100-million after hydro and water main work was tacked on.

The Toronto Transit Commission has asked staff to report back in May on how much the review might cost before it decides.

Related

Mayor Ford often uses the 6.8-kilometre project as Exhibit A in his case for subways, decrying cost overruns and snarled traffic on the midtown corridor.

“You don’t have to have a study of St. Clair … it’s a complete disaster,” the Mayor told reporters on Friday when advised of Mr. Mihevc’s request.

“Just go up there and drive. People know it’s a nightmare.” Councillor Doug Ford called the project a “screw-up” and blasted the councillor for wanted to spend more money on it.

That’s not what the St. Paul’s councillor sees at all. Riders are flocking to the line, new businesses are opening up, and development applications are in, says Mr. Mihevc.

The cost overruns have much more to do with “scope creep” than the transit project itself, he insists. He says the streetcar portion was only $3-million over budget. A consultant could look at ridership, development potential, and traffic patterns, the councillor says.

“Let’s study it from an objective, third-party point of view, determine its success and that will then impact perhaps how we do light rail in other parts of the city and whether it is worth the money for other projects,” said Mr. Mihevc.

There was some discussion at the commission as to whether a review is worth tax dollars. Councillor Josh Colle, a new commissioner on the TTC, says he doesn’t need a study to tell him how the line has changed St. Clair Avenue for better. He worried that a report would “drag out this whole fantasy debate.”

TTC chair Karen Stintz, however, argued that St. Clair is “a symbol” in the subway versus light rail tussle that continues to rage in the city. She said the local Wychwood Heights BIA has been looking to hire a marketing firm to counter, in part, some of the Mayor’s comments.

“Their position is it’s not a disaster, that actually St. Clair has improved in a lot of ways, and they’re feeling they’re being negatively impacted by some of the comments,” she said. Ms. Stintz says there were clearly project management problems, “but to say it’s a disaster, I don’t think we can say it’s a disaster.”

Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker, the new vice-chair of the commission, welcomes a report he hopes will put an end to the “hysteria” that is spreading in Scarborough over LRTs.

“I’ve seen pictures of LRTs with dead people, that’s what being circulated in Scarborough right now,” said the Scarborough Centre councillor, a left-leaning politician whose appointment as vice-chair suggests how little control the Mayor has over the TTC now.

National Post

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/city-councillor-wants-third-party-to-determine-if-controversial-st-clair-project-was-a-waste-of-money/feed2stdCouncillor Joe Mihevc, a strong proponent of the St. Clair line that courses through his ward, says there is a lot of misinformation floating around about a project that climbed from an initial $48-million, to over $100-million after hydro and water main work was tacked on.Newsmaker: Does Rob Ford deserve credit for the CUPE 416 collective agreement?http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/newsmaker-does-rob-ford-deserve-credit-for-the-cupe-416-collective-agreement
http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/newsmaker-does-rob-ford-deserve-credit-for-the-cupe-416-collective-agreement#commentsFri, 17 Feb 2012 15:30:31 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=141932

By Steve Kupferman

City council ratiﬁed a new collective agreement with CUPE Local 416 (the union that represents the city’s outdoor workers) on Wednesday, with a unanimous vote. The new contract, a result of weeks of hard negotiations, signiﬁcantly curbs job security protections for employees, and is expected to produce savings, though full ﬁnancial details have yet to be released. But does Mayor Rob Ford — who wasn’t, himself, at the bargaining table — deserve credit for bringing in the deal without a lockout or a strike? Here’s what happened when we posed that question to a few councillors on either side of the municipal political divide.

“I think everybody involved deserves some credit to some degree. He certainly can take the lion’s share. He is the mayor. It’s a good agreement. It’s a good agreement for the times. It’s a good agreement for the City of Toronto.”— Anthony Perruzza (Ward 8, York West)

“Well, they bargained hard and the union bargained hard and they came up with an agreement, and I think all sides clearly got what they needed out of it, and this is a testament to tough negotiations.”— Joe Mihevc (Ward 21, St. Paul’s)

“Really, between council’s budget vote and the bargaining unit’s offer of 0% for three years, the table was set for a deal. And I give the Mayor kudos for realizing that at the last minute and ending what was very clearly indication an intention to lock out.”— Shelley Carroll (Ward 33, Don Valley East)

“As far as the Mayor’s legacy is concerned, I think this is a big plus for him, and I think it’ll stand out as one of the highlights of his term.”— Deputy mayor Doug Holyday (Ward 3, Etobicoke Centre)

“Well, he definitely provided the leadership on this particular issue. We had a lot of meetings through the night with respect to dealing with the back and forth that was going on, and ultimately it was he and his administration that got the kind of agreement that really brought back a lot of management rights to the city.”— Budget chief Mike Del Grande (Ward 29, Scarborough-Agincourt)

“Yes. An important part of the negotiations was the union understanding that we were serious, that we weren’t kidding. And they knew that the Mayor was 100% committed to getting the flexibility we needed to manage the city better.”— Denzil Minnan-Wong (Ward 34, Don Valley East)

Related

On one side are the Mayor and most of his allies, who back his underground transit vision. On the other, are the rogue TTC chairwoman and a coalition of councillors, a seeming majority, who argue that the best way to bring transit to the most people is with light rail lines on Sheppard, Finch, Eglinton and the Scarborough RT, known at one time as Transit City. The vote appears to be close, and arm twisting was rampant on the floor of council Tuesday.

“This is the most important decision I think we will be making in 15 years,” said Councillor Joe Mihevc. “I think a full airing is important.”

And if a majority of council votes in favour of the predominantly surface light rail plan, one Ford ally suggested the provincial agency spearheading the expansion ignore it.

“Because I think it’s the wrong decision,” said Councillor Norm Kelly, who argues that the only way to deal with Toronto’s congestion problem is to tunnel underground — even if it means fewer subway lines. “The only advice I could give [to Metrolinx] is this is their project. If they see merit in going underground the whole way, then do it.”

Mr. Kelly also mused about the “interesting option” of possibly continuing the fight at the TTC, which is stacked with Ford loyalists. “I don’t think council represents the will of the people,” said Mr. Kelly.

Those fighting to revive the light rail plan first championed by former mayor David Miller vehemently disagree. “Council is supreme,” said Ms. Stintz, who has been fiercely attacked by Ford allies in the wake of her revolt. She is increasingly forceful in hammering home her fundamental point: that Mayor Rob Ford has yet to secure funding to extend the Sheppard subway in both directions. And the underground Eglinton line that he supports over one that is at street level in the eastern suburbs comes at the expense of other projects.

“There is no question an LRT can run underground, and if it runs underground it will save time. But the question is should it?” Ms. Stintz said. “And the question is about trade-offs, and if we spend $2-billion more than we need undergrounding an LRT on Eglinton and we deliver nothing to Sheppard and Finch, is that the best use of our scarce resources?”

Her motion on Wednesday will seek council’s endorsement of the four light rail lines, plus request the province consider studying other concerns raised by councillors. For example, if it makes sense to extend the Bloor-Danforth line to the Scarborough Town Centre so the Scarborough RT can stay in operation while the extension is being built. Metrolinx has both asked for council, and council and the Mayor, to come to a single position.

Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, and a Ford ally and TTC commissioner, said the province should listen to the majority of council.

“The will of council is very important,” he said. “I hope to get all the information, and I hope to get as many questions answered as possible…. We have to understand the financing piece, the planning piece, and we have to understand what the implications going forward, not just for today, but 50 years from now, and what Eglinton would look like with an LRT versus what it would look like with a subway.”

TTC Chair Karen Stintz maintains compromise is possible in City Hall’s renewed transit battle, but the challenge will be to convince others on council who appear to be staking out diametrically opposite positions.

The Mayor made clear again Monday that he will only support underground transit while his political opponents used legal arguments to bolster their support of the predominantly surface light rail network known as Transit City. The wrangling is expected to hit the floor of council in March, said Ms. Stintz, when a deal hammered out between the Mayor and the Premier is expected to go to a vote.

More so than the budget vote that divided council, the transit question has become a test of Mr. Ford’s ability to push through his agenda. He argues that his convincing election win gave him the mandate to build subways.

But according to one legal expert, he has already overstepped his bounds. Freya Kristjanson, a partner with Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish, hired by Councillor Joe Mihevc, concluded the Mayor did not have the authority to cancel Transit City, and then sign a memorandum of understanding with the province for an underground line along Eglinton, and a refurbished Scarborough RT. Transit City, which initially envisioned seven light rail lines and was scaled back to lines on Sheppard, Finch and Eglinton avenues in addition to a revamped Scarborough RT, was approved by the TTC in 2007. City council then considered and voted on elements of it.

Related

“To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumours of Transit City’s death have been greatly exaggerated,” said Councillor Mihevc, a Ford critic. He would not say who paid for the legal opinion, just that it was not funded by tax dollars, developers or unions.

Try telling this to the Mayor, who is insisting that “it’s all about subways.” “I didn’t overstep my boundaries,” Mayor Ford told reporters after his Monday morning weigh-in. “I did what the taxpayers want. They want subways, that’s it. They don’t want streetcars. I was out in Scarborough over the weekend, people came up to me and said, they want subways. That’s it.”

Councillor Doug Ford strongly backed his brother, and the “clear mandate” he was given by Torontonians during the election for subways. He said “council will have its say” on the memorandum of understanding, but he lashed out against an “absolute disconnect between what the people want, and what council wants.” Ms. Stintz believes the Mayor will bring the MOU to his executive committee for approval, after which it will go to council; the Mayor’s office did not confirm that assertion.

Part of the MOU saw the city assume responsibility for extending the Sheppard subway, as Mayor Ford promised during the election. But questions have been raised about the ability to get the private sector to finance the line. That’s why Ms. Stintz floated a “compromise” plan that called for a more affordable Eglinton line that is at street level in the eastern end. The money saved could go to extending the Sheppard subway to Victoria Park Avenue, and some kind of rapid transit corridor on Finch. That idea now appears to be off the table, and longstanding Transit City proponents have stepped into the void, pushing that plan as the best “bang for the buck”.

“I still believe a compromise can be reached,” said Ms. Stintz. “I know the Mayor has indicated he was not entirely on board with the compromise I proposed but that doesn’t mean there’s not room for a compromise that will help the Mayor realize his vision for a subway on Sheppard.”

Meanwhile, Metrolinx, the provincial agency building and paying for the Eglinton line, continues to leave the issue in the city’s court. “We want the City of Toronto to land on a single position,” said CEO and president Bruce McCuaig in a statement. He said all of the currently commissioned work is required for either the Mayor’s plan, or the previous plan, and that construction continues. Last week, he said some preliminary engineering work had started on burying the eastern section of the Eglinton LRT — even though city council had not yet ratified the plan, a condition stated in the memorandum of understanding. The city is responsible for sunk costs for cancelling Transit City, estimated at $65-million. Ford ally Councillor Norm Kelly says Mr. Ford acted exactly as he should.

“Let’s understand the powers of the Mayor,” said Mr. Kelly. “The Mayor is the one politician who talks to all Torontonians at election time. And after he is elected he comes to council with a mandate, and he gives advice… It’s up to Metrolinx to follow the advice it thinks is the most important.”

Early this week, reporters learned that a scheme is afoot to alter Rob Ford’s plan to use the majority of an $8.2-billion commitment from the province to construct an all-underground light-rail line beneath Eglinton Avenue. The new proposal would cut costs by building some of the Eglinton line above ground (as originally planned under David Miller), leaving the balance to be spent on rapid transit for Finch Avenue and an extension of the Sheppard subway. It’s not yet clear how everything will play out, but here, at least, are the players.

Rob Ford Putting the Eglinton LRT underground was one of the first things he advocated for after being elected mayor, and it wasn’t long before he was able to broker a non-binding deal with the province to make it happen. Doing so necessitated funnelling previously committed provincial money away from light-rail lines planned for Finch and Sheppard avenues.

Karen Stintz As chair of the TTC, she’s the one leading publicity for the effort to un-bury Eglinton. Her exact role in behind-the-scenes negotiations is unclear, but it’s a safe assumption that she’s playing a significant part in bringing other councillors onside. She’s seen as a Ford ally, so her insubordination is politically risky.

John Parker, Josh Matlow, Maria Augimeri, Joe Mihevc These councillors were initially Stintz’s most prominent backers in the press. Parker and Augimeri are both TTC commissioners, Mihevc is a former TTC vice-chair, and Matlow is a well-known council centrist.

Dalton McGuinty No matter what kind of transit the City decides it wants to build, the decision to proceed or not ultimately rests with this guy, because the $8.2-billion set aside to pay for building light rail in Toronto belongs to the province. So far, McGuinty and friends have been open to bending to Toronto’s whims, and McGuinty’s recent comments to the press indicate that this will continue to be the case.

Bruce McCuaig As president and CEO of Metrolinx, the provincially controlled regional planning agency, McCuaig is the one in charge of spending the province’s transit dollars in the GTA. Changes to Toronto’s light-rail plans will require his sign-off, and a sign-off from the organization’s board.

Gary Webster Webster, the chief general manager of the TTC, has a role in designing and building whatever new public transit lines are ultimately approved for Toronto, but his decision-making power is limited. Whatever the others settle on, he’ll have to help implement.

On Wednesday, the city’s licensing and standards committee voted to “defer indefinitely” a request to study the feasibility of allowing backyard chickens in Toronto.

Residents are already raising hens on their property for their eggs, and advocates say it makes sense to legalize a practice that is in lockstep with the growing local food movement.

The committee heard from a number of hen supporters, including an urban food writer, a public health researcher and two Grade 9 brothers who joined a club in their high-school dedicated to changing the city bylaw. “Our generation is really into knowing where food comes from,” said Matthew Patel, who goes to Upper Canada College and has four hens at home.

Lorraine Johnson, author of City Farmer: Adventures in Urban Food Growing, said Toronto does not have to forge a new path, it can simply look to what other cities such as Vancouver, New York, Los Angeles and Kingston have done in removing restrictions on keeping hens in urban areas.

But members of the committee raised various issues with the birds, including noise, possible public health risks, nuisance to neighbours, animal welfare, and sapping strained city resources. Some worried it could lead to residents wanting to raise other farm animals in the city.

“This is the craziest thing I have ever heard in my life,” said Councillor Frances Nunziata.

“I think people who want the farm experience can grow some tomatoes,” said Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker. He does not believe that refusing to legalize backyard chickens “would deny you a farming experience,” adding that the younger generation hardly knows how to boil an egg, let alone raise a chicken.

After the unanimous vote, Councillor Mary Margaret McMahon vowed that the fight to legalize backyard hens is not over.

“It says to me we’re at the beginning of an education process. There is a lot of misapprehension and false information that is out there, and people really have to get their head around that,” said Councillor Joe Mihevc, who also championed the cause.

The councillors said the issue is not going away, what with people growing produce on balconies and rooftops, sharing backyard vegetable gardens, and youngsters pushing their parents to consume local. “What does that tell us? Change is afoot,” said Councillor Mihevc.

Union workers will bear the brunt of layoffs if city council approves the proposed 2012 operating budget, which includes issuing pink slips to 1,200 municipal employees.

On Wednesday, the city released a breakdown of the layoffs, some of which have already occurred. They include 714 positions in various city departments, 666 of which are unionized. Another 152 public library jobs will be cut, and 324 TTC workers, which are a mix of union and non-union positions. The city is also deleting 1,148 positions that are either vacant, or will be vacated due to a buyout package, the majority of which are also unionized. If approved, the civil service will shrink by a total of 2,336 positions. Deferring the hiring of 68 firefighters, 36 paramedics and 353 positions in the police service are among the cuts.

Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday acknowledged the number is sizable, and he takes no pleasure in laying off workers.

“But I guess if they just took a look at the history of how this workforce has grown, when it was supposed to decrease, but none of the other administrations cared to get involved to reduce the numbers,” Mr. Holyday said.

Mayor Rob Ford has said repeatedly that he is on a mission to shrink the size and cost of government.

Mr. Holyday said most city workers are unionized, which could explain why they are hit harder by layoffs.

The cuts to TTC jobs are a mixture of restructuring, and the controversial decision to run fewer, more crowded buses and streetcars. The TTC is also considering contracting out another 500 jobs in maintenance-type positions and cleaning, which would reduce the workforce further.

“It’s a significant reduction,” TTC chair Karen Stintz said. “We were advised we needed to reduce our headcount and change our organization and adjust to the new fiscal realities of the city.”

If approved by city council, a workforce of about 53,000 positions will shrink by about 5%.

Councillor Joe Mihevc says it will be a shock to the system.

“I honestly feel that this is too much, too fast,” said the St. Paul’s councillor. “We did this during the Mel [Lastman] years and you know what happened? We hired a lot these folks back as consultants.”

Mr. Holyday cannot say whether more layoffs are in the cards at the city, but he points out that this proposed budget relies on $83-million worth of surplus.

“That signifies that we haven’t reached our goal yet because we want to be able to balance our budget without reserves,” he said.

Three city-owned museums are set to be closed as part of for the city’s next round of budget cuts, Toronto city councillor Joe Mihevc said on Sunday.

Threatened with closure are Montgomery’s Inn, Gibson House and Zion School — all 19th and early-20th century brick structures. Also on the chopping block is the Market Gallery, an exhibition space in the St. Lawrence Market. The city of Toronto currently runs 10 museums, including Fort York, the Spadina Museum and the home of William Lyon Mackenzie, the first mayor of Toronto. Operating the museums costs the city $5.3 million per year. In a Sunday rally at Montgomery’s Inn, Mr. Mihevc suggested that instead of closure, Toronto’s three threatened museums could be pressed into raising more money or operating in a “more cost-effective manner.” He also suggested starting up “Friends of” foundations to rally community support for the structures.

]]>http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/budget-cuts-may-close-3-city-run-museums/feed0stdA large crowd gathers outside of Montgomery's Inn in Etobicoke to speak out against a plan to close the museum, Sunday afternoon, November 13, 2011TTC considers random drug, alcohol testinghttp://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/ttc-considers-random-drug-alcohol-testing
http://news.nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/ttc-considers-random-drug-alcohol-testing#commentsMon, 17 Oct 2011 19:15:09 +0000http://news.nationalpost.com/?p=100727

The Toronto Transit Commission is reconsidering a proposal to start conducting random drug and alcohol testing of employees.

It comes less than a week after a bus driver was charged with criminal negligence causing death and possession of marijuana in an August accident that killed a 43-year-old woman and injured 13 other passengers.

In a press release, the transit authority said random breathalyzer or oral swab tests that detect impairment at the time will act as a “necessary deterrent for those who choose to risk their own safety, as well as the safety of others.”

Related

If approved by the commission, the TTC would be the first Canadian public transit agency to subject all of its operators to screening.

TTC staff first proposed the measures in 2008, but the commission opted for tests that are not random.

“Certainly recent events have caused us to re-look at our policy, and make sure it is strong enough, and upon review found that it could be strengthened,” said Karen Stintz, chair of the TTC. She argued that commissioners should submit to the same testing regime as employees if the proposal is adopted.

In 2008, four bus and streetcar operators were found to be under the influence of alcohol and another 35 other employees had drug or alcohol-related incidents from 2006 to 2008.

Those numbers have not improved, said Brad Ross, TTC spokesman.

Transit staff point to statistics from the U.S. Federal Transit Administration that show positive random alcohol and drug tests declined from 1995 to 2005 as evidence of a “clear relationship” between random tests and change in behaviour. Random alcohol and drug testing is the law in the U.S. transportation sector. Greyhound and Coach Canada also conduct random tests. The TTC’s current “fitness for duty” policy tests employees in “safety sensitive” positions, such as an operator, before hiring, if there is a reasonable reason to suspect impairment, after an incident or after substance abuse treatment.

Expanding that to random tests will likely be met with opposition from those who believe it is a violation of workers’ rights.

The Amalgamated Transit Union spoke out against the proposal in 2008, and has filed a grievance against the existing policy. Union president Bob Kinnear deferred comment until the TTC’s meeting on Wednesday.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has raised concerns in the past about random tests that in one sense were too broad because they were catching drug use that was days old, and in another sense not broad enough because they did not test for impairment from prescription medication. “We were concerned about whether it would be effective, and if it’s not effective, why do it?” said Abby Deshman, director of public safety program at the CCLA, acknowledging that scientific tests do evolve. “It can be an affront to people’s dignity to assume that everyone needs to be subjected to random testing.”

Councillor Joe Mihevc, a member of the previous commission that voted against random testing, considers deterrent claims to be “dubious” and worried that it would cause people to “hide their addictions even more.”

Brad Ross, spokesman for the TTC, said the tests measure impairment at the time, not casual drug use, and do not reveal the kind of drug. “We’re not here to oversee their personal choice and what they do on their own time,” he said. “We’re only concerned whether they’re fit for duty when they show up for work.”

You may be surprised to hear this, given all the talk about service cuts and funding gaps at City Hall, but Toronto’s budget process is just starting. Councillors trimmed $27-million in late September, but that’s a fraction of what may be needed. To get the creative juices flowing, the National Post posed the following question to all 44 city councillors:

You may or may not agree with Mayor Rob Ford on how to handle the budget for 2012, but signs point to a substantial gap between revenues and planned expenditures. Estimates have ranged from $500-million to $774-million (whittled down now by the $26.7-million cut made this week). In 150 words or less, please explain what steps you would take to close that gap, either through raising revenue or cutting expenditures.

Twenty-two councillors responded. Here is what they had to say.

Doug Holyday, Deputy MayorWard 3 Etobicoke Centre

One of the key things required to balance this budget is going to be restraint when it comes to wage negotiations. The years of the 2% and 3% wage increases are gone. In order to find a large part of the missing funds, it would be totally impossible if we were to pass around large wage increases. We have to revisit the fair-wage policy. In order to get more bidders bidding on city work, which will produce lower prices, we have to make it as least restrictive as possible, and I think if the province and the federal government think it’s fair to have a scale less than ours I don’t see why we would be at higher rate. It has been estimated there could be $100- to $200-million in savings if we could get more bidders. We also need to review how we deliver services, and possibly contract out more.

Gloria Lindsay LubyWard 4 Etobicoke Centre

There is no question the city must cut expenditures, but in order to figure out how much, you have to identify your starting point. I am very concerned about the projected deficit for the upcoming year, but that number must be balanced with the projected surplus from the previous year. Municipalities are required to balance the books so the city has run larger surpluses annually to cover anticipated expenditures. Perhaps our projected expenses are too generous and the reported $774-million shortfall could be substantially smaller. Instead of cutting an entire service, perhaps we should be asking if we are delivering the service in the most efficient manner. I am looking forward to the efficiency review to see if the programs can be improved in their delivery and procurement practices. We should not sell “cash cows” that provide substantial revenues to the City today and in the future.

Mark GrimesWard 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore

City Hall must look to the future and address what our city’s requirements are in 10, 20 and 30 years from now. The yearly budget shortfall is a continuous problem that distracts council from discussing and debating our future (transit, job creation, infrastructure, etc). This issue must be resolved once and for all. The single biggest expenditure at City Hall is staffing levels. Our manager-to-employee ratio is far too high. Council needs to review its hiring practices to reflect a model similar to the private sector. Hundreds of unnecessary middle management positions costs tax payers tens of millions of dollars annually. Council needs to come together and agree that services need to be delivered more efficiently, outsource all non-essential services where possible, and establish benchmarks for employee productivity similar to Canada’s top and most successful corporations. Until our fiscal house is in order, the debate on Toronto’s future remains stalled.

James PasternakWard 10 York Centre

I support a blended approach to our deficit by increasing revenue and finding efficiencies. We must reduce Toronto’s workforce by attrition, early retirement packages and gapping vacant positions. A hiring freeze is essential. City of Toronto, TTC and Build Toronto non-performing real estate holdings should be sold to reduce the city’s capital backlog and keep taxes low. Toronto needs a more robust naming rights and advertising policy as a source of revenue. I will continue to advocate for a strategic partnership between the Toronto Centre for the Arts and a post-secondary institution to establish a satellite campus. This will save the theatre, create a profit centre and help students and the arts. There is no escaping a 2.5 to 3% tax increase, increased user fees and an increase in TTC fares. We must encourage self-reliance via citizen action groups and encourage them to operate as a Toronto “Peace Corps.”

Frank Di GiorgioWard 12 York South-Weston

Most people acknowledge that the structural gap is difficult to measure and there are no miracle solutions. Accordingly, the City must explore both cost-saving opportunities as well as new revenue sources. While these efforts will result in a reduction of the deficit, they will not eliminate the structural deficit. Historically, the city has rightfully relied on the province to eliminate the residual gap with a bailout. However, this practice must be abandoned going forward and real cuts may be necessary to clear the remaining hurdle. In the alternative, the province could authorize large mature cities with the taxing powers of the City of Toronto to incur a deficit up to 10% of the total annual tax revenues. This relief, along with reasonable tax increases would give the City of Toronto the flexibility to cope with large residual deficits over a five-year period.

Sarah DoucetteWard 13 Parkdale-High Park

Before cutting any services, councillors need more budget information. We have read the KPMG review and the city manager’s recommendations, which total approximately $100-million in savings for 2012. We do not have the revenue side to balance the budget. We need to know revenue from user fee increases, investments, the land transfer tax, savings from the 10% cut in all department budgets, efficiencies and the surplus for 2011. I feel it was a mistake to eliminate the vehicle registration tax before last year’s budget, removing $64-million in revenue. By freezing property taxes we also eliminated revenue; a 1% increase brings in approximately $23-million. For 2012, a small property tax increase will be needed and efficiencies must be found. Until the Mayor informs us of his priorities and we receive the revenue information we do not know what the economic, social and environmental effects will do to the residents of Toronto.

Gord PerksWard 14 Parkdale-High Park

Dear Budget Chief Del Grande,

Here are some lessons I learned working on four consecutive balanced budgets.

1. Don’t panic. A solid budget requires a cool head. In 2010 we cut costs by $167-million, without cutting services. It takes calm to find the small moves: a few hundred thousand in more efficient business processes; a couple million in technological improvement; a couple million more making different departments share resources.

3. Engage the province on core issues. Last term we got a partial uploading deal that is taking the pressure off, but we still need the province on TTC operating: not chasing the fantasy of the Sheppard Subway.

Karen StintzWard 16 Eglinton Lawrence

The City of Toronto’s budget challenges are long-standing. There are no simple solutions to building a sustainable multi-year budget but the Ford administration is taking the necessary first steps towards putting the city on a solid fiscal foundation. The first step is to focus on the core services that a city is required to provide. The city has tried to be too many things to too many people and is now unable to deliver the high-quality service that once defined Toronto. Once re-establishing the core services that the city should offer, the next steps are to reduce the city’s debt, charge appropriate user fees, and set moderate and predictable property tax increases. The Toronto Transit Commission also needs to receive provincial funding in recognition that it is a regional transportation system that carries more passengers on its streetcar routes than the entire GO Transit network.

Ana BailaoWard 18 Davenport

Put simply, Toronto’s spending commitments are greater than its revenues. This problem, a situation inherited from provincial downloading and amalgamation, has kept a sustainability budget out of reach. Council’s conversation has been about reducing spending. It has been an important conversation but remains only one tool in the city-builder’s toolbox. Lowering spending is not advantageous if revenue is lowered as well. As we fight to maintain services, we must examine other tools; a modest tax increase, reasonable user fees, and some careful spending reductions. We must also recognize the responsibility other levels of government have in keeping childcare, arts, industry and transportation vibrant parts of our city. I believe in Toronto, I believe in its citizens, and I believe in council’s desire to care for both. Serious discussions are needed, about new revenue streams, fair consideration of wage freezes, and transit fares, but I assure you I will be right there in the middle of it.

Mike LaytonWard 19 Trinity-Spadina

We need to know real numbers before we can make real decisions and this can only happen during the budget process beginning November. There are ways to save money that will not mean the elimination of vital programs. We must continue to put pressure on other levels of government to cover the costs of programs that are their responsibility. Eliminating child care subsidies, for example, simply lets the Province off the hook and hurts families. We should also examine revenue options that will help ensure everyone who uses Toronto’s services, including those from outside our city borders, are contributing. I am very concerned that the cost of the cuts proposed now will have significant social, health, environmental and economic consequences on our City – that these cuts will make our City less affordable and the services we use more expensive. We should not be dismantling what is good about our city.

Adam VaughanWard 20 Trinity-Spadina

Build a better budget by building a better city. The choice is not just cut or tax. New buildings bring new taxes. But in Toronto, new growth is not paying for itself, in fact it often adds to the cost of running the city. Our planning process lacks discipline and is creating waste by being both too permissive and too restrictive. First; Eliminate the OMB. This would save the city, the province and developers millions. The city spends $80,000 a day at OMB hearings. Giving council final approval on planning, brings speed, clarity and political accountability to the process while cutting costs. Next; Fix the Official Plan. Intensification should do more than just pay for itself. Currently the focus is on capturing one time capital costs. New development should only be approved if it also reduces city operating costs and creates a surplus of new operating revenue for the city.

Joe MihevcWard 21 St. Paul’s

The problem with the Mayor’s strategy is that the only solution being considered to balance the 2012 book is to decrease expenses. Clearly a more balanced strategy taking into consideration revenues and expenditures is required. I would suggest: a more modest expenditure control, perhaps in the range of 5% rather than the current 10% reduction being demanded of departments. On the revenue side, the key piece is negotiating with the province to upload more costs, especially with respect to public transit (the historic formula would yield Toronto $225 million). Then a revenue mix of fees, a modest TTC fare increase and property tax increase would fill in the rest. I note that investment income, new assessment income, the 2011 surplus will also help bridge the gap.

John FilionWard 23 Willowdale

The vast majority of residents in the area I represent are looking for council to balance the budget through greater efficiency, some increases in revenue, but not cuts to the core services they value — snow clearing, parks maintenance, libraries, environment days, programs for seniors, etc. I believe great savings could be achieved through a restructuring of the bureaucracy, which might allow the same or better customer service at lower cost. Additional revenue could be generated by full cost recovery for large development applications and higher development charges so that developers pay their fair share of capital costs associated with growth.

Jaye RobinsonWard 25 Don Valley West

Every year, at the start of its budgetary process, the City of Toronto faces a structural deficit and funding shortfall that results in an annual budget crisis and suggestions of drastic tax increases, severe service cuts and the sale of city assets. This short term reactionary approach is no way to run a city and I am not in favour of selling major capital assets to fund operating needs. To be a great city, and to fulfill the vision we all have for our city, Toronto needs a long term sustainable funding model. This can be achieved with a balanced approach of surplus spending cuts, efficiency improvements, alternate service deliveries, cost sharing with the province and, if necessary, minor revenue enhancements. There is still considerable overlap and duplication within city departments, with the province and with local NGOs. This combination of measures will allow us to keep taxes in check while preserving the city we love.

John ParkerWard 26 Don Valley West

Experience teaches that increased revenues invite politicians to give in to the temptation to increase spending further. This is the story behind the predicament we face at present. The time has come for council to give serious attention to ways to bring spending under control. I support the process currently under way, including: 1. Review the full menu of services provided by the city and make clear judgments as to which are core, which are non-core but important, and which are extra, or which can be delivered some other way, or which can otherwise be considered redundant. Also review levels of service to determine if any core/important services could withstand a reduction in standards. 2. Hold senior management’s feet to the fire on the expectation to reduce spending levels by 10% through increased efficiencies. 3. Review alternative funding models to reduce the burden on the tax base.

Kristyn Wong-TamWard 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale

The pressure will be reduced when efficiencies and savings are factored in — as they always have been — but cutting services residents rely on must be a last resort. Other levels of government must be held to account and support Toronto. When Mayor Ford endorsed Prime Minister Harper, did he not intend to pursue key federal investments for our city? I would support re-instating the Vehicle Registration Tax, dedicated to road and transit improvements. I estimate adjusting development charges to encourage family-friendly units could raise revenues over the current $90-million. Innovations such as a City of Toronto Bank, offering mortgages and other credit products to Torontonians, could eliminate the $241.3-million in annual interest payments to conventional banks. If Rogers can establish a bank, why can’t the City of Toronto? Council must put aside its soaring rhetoric and be more creative than to simply ask how to worsen city services by cutting them.”

Mary FragedakisWard 29 Toronto-Danforth

To handle the 2012 budget we need current numbers on both the revenue and expense side — real decisions require real numbers. As an entrepreneur, I have to see a spreadsheet with properly vetted numbers. For any proposed cuts or new revenue streams, those numbers have to include an analysis of the implications for the city’s future revenues and our economy. Our responsibility as councillors is not just to balance the books but also to provide stewardship for Toronto’s overall prosperity. We have an incredible building boom going on in Toronto (the biggest in the world by far) but growing pains means challenging budgeting — made worse by federal/provincial government neglect. The delicate mix that created that boom cannot be slashed willy-nilly. Nor can we continue to revisit well-thought-out, publicly consulted-on infrastructure projects like Transit City and the Waterfront as it wastes money, sends the wrong signal to investors and undermines our economy.

Councillor Janet DavisWard 31 Beaches-East York

Toronto’s budget must be, and will be, balanced when it’s approved in January. And, as in every previous year, the budget will be balanced by both reducing expenditures and increasing revenues. How much ends up on each side of this equation will be decided by council after much review and debate. But a real budget must be put on the table first — a budget based on sound revenue projections, actual year-end expenses, and proposed departmental efficiencies and service changes. I will push to get the most accurate information possible, examine every option thoroughly and do my best to communicate, consult and represent the views and interests of my community. I will work to keep taxes affordable while recognizing the many voices that have called on us this summer to protect the important services that keep our neighbourhoods and our city safe, liveable and thriving. I, too, have a mandate.

Shelley CarrollWard 33 Don Valley East

Check the city manager budget presentation from February 2011. Page 64 says the remaining pressure is really only $530-million. You can use the remaining 2010 surplus to pay the exit package and there will still be $47-million in change. There’s also $80-million extra in the land transfer tax. You’ve got council approval for $25-million in reductions, so your pressure is already down to $378-million. The city manager forecast a 2% property tax increase but I heard the Mayor say he might go to 3%, so there’s another $23-million. Assessment growth, the Parking Authority, Hydro and Enwave are all up for another $75-million. That employee separation package brings savings of $58-million. Your pressure is now down to $222-million. It is a damn shame that neither Hudak or McGuinty promise a return to the Bill Davis deal on TTC Operating Costs because that would be, wait for it, $250 million.

Michelle BerardinettiWard 35 Scarborough Southwest

Here are some thoughtful ideas to close the gap: a small property tax increase of rate of inflation or 3%, a three-year salary freeze for all permanent employees (every year city spends $216-million for annual increases), select user fees such as charging $5 for library card and demand 0.5 cents of the HST. We could sell air rights over subway stations to developers, close City Hall down in August for all non-essential services (as is done in Europe), reduce staff costs by extending statute of limitations for traffic study repeat requests from two years to five years, and obtain more corporate sponsorships/naming rights of city properties. We could sell off surplus property and 10% of Toronto Hydro, charge 905ers premium fees for services (library card, possible tolls, employment tax), smart technology to mitigate costs, continued provincial uploading of child care and long-term care, and allow Toronto to have its own lottery.

Mike Del GrandeWard 39 Scarborough-Agincourt

Thoughtfully, I will continue to look for efficiencies, reduce head counts and control our wage costs. At the same time I will look for alternatives while balancing the needs and aspirations of our city.

Raymond ChoWard 42 Scarborough-Rouge River

While it is clear that there is a gap causing the city’s structural deficit, it is nothing new to the City of Toronto. Mayor Ford argues that this is caused by a spending problem and not a revenue problem, but I disagree. Raising taxes will not address the whole of this problem and it does not make sense to raise user fees while cutting services, which is the Mayor’s course of action. This will result in a divided city of haves and have nots. This is not the city we want for our children and our future. Rather, the solution for Toronto is to increase dialogue with the province and federal government in order gain funding support and upload services the city is unable to provide. This is very important as the downfall of Toronto will negatively impact the Province of Ontario and the Canadian nation as a whole.

Note, this is piece incorporates information that appeared here and here

You may be surprised to hear this, given all the talk about service cuts and funding gaps at City Hall, but Toronto’s budget process is just starting. Councillors trimmed $27-million this week, but that’s a fraction of what may be needed. To get the creative juices flowing, the National Post posed the following question to all 44 city councillors:

You may or may not agree with Mayor Rob Ford on how to handle the budget for 2012, but signs point to a substantial gap between revenues and planned expenditures. Estimates have ranged from $500-million to $774-million (whittled down now by the $26.7-million cut made this week). In 150 words or less, please explain what steps you would take to close that gap, either through raising revenue or cutting expenditures.

Twenty-two councillors responded. Responses of the first nine appeared on Saturday. Here are the responses of another four:

Mike LaytonWard 19 Trinity-Spadina
We need to know real numbers before we can make real decisions and this can only happen during the budget process beginning November. There are ways to save money that will not mean the elimination of vital programs. We must continue to put pressure on other levels of government to cover the costs of programs that are their responsibility. Eliminating child care subsidies, for example, simply lets the Province off the hook and hurts families. We should also examine revenue options that will help ensure everyone who uses Toronto’s services, including those from outside our city borders, are contributing. I am very concerned that the cost of the cuts proposed now will have significant social, health, environmental and economic consequences on our City – that these cuts will make our City less affordable and the services we use more expensive. We should not be dismantling what is good about our city.

Adam VaughanWard 20 Trinity-Spadina
Build a better budget by building a better city. The choice is not just cut or tax. New buildings bring new taxes. But in Toronto, new growth is not paying for itself, in fact it often adds to the cost of running the city. Our planning process lacks discipline and is creating waste by being both too permissive and too restrictive. First; Eliminate the OMB. This would save the city, the province and developers millions. The city spends $80,000 a day at OMB hearings. Giving council final approval on planning, brings speed, clarity and political accountability to the process while cutting costs. Next; Fix the Official Plan. Intensification should do more than just pay for itself. Currently the focus is on capturing one time capital costs. New development should only be approved if it also reduces city operating costs and creates a surplus of new operating revenue for the city.

Joe MihevcWard 21 St. Paul’s
The problem with the Mayor’s strategy is that the only solution being considered to balance the 2012 book is to decrease expenses. Clearly a more balanced strategy taking into consideration revenues and expenditures is required. I would suggest: a more modest expenditure control, perhaps in the range of 5% rather than the current 10% reduction being demanded of departments. On the revenue side, the key piece is negotiating with the province to upload more costs, especially with respect to public transit (the historic formula would yield Toronto $225 million). Then a revenue mix of fees, a modest TTC fare increase and property tax increase would fill in the rest. I note that investment income, new assessment income, the 2011 surplus will also help bridge the gap.

Jaye RobinsonWard 25-Don Valley West
Every year, at the start of its budgetary process, the City of Toronto faces a structural deficit and funding shortfall that results in an annual budget crisis and suggestions of drastic tax increases, severe service cuts and the sale of city assets. This short term reactionary approach is no way to run a city and I am not in favour of selling major capital assets to fund operating needs. To be a great city, and to fulfill the vision we all have for our city, Toronto needs a long term sustainable funding model. This can be achieved with a balanced approach of surplus spending cuts, efficiency improvements, alternate service deliveries, cost sharing with the province and, if necessary, minor revenue enhancements. There is still considerable overlap and duplication within city departments, with the province and with local NGOs. This combination of measures will allow us to keep taxes in check while preserving the city we love.

On the hunt at the municipal government for more sources of revenue, Toronto transit riders may well be walking into a corporately branded subway station one day.

That’s the idea promoted by Councillor Doug Ford on Tuesday, endorsed as one worth looking at by his brother, Mayor Rob Ford, and currently on the table for the cash-strapped TTC, according to its chairwoman, Karen Stintz.

“As long as it’s called the right name — Spadina McDonald’s, whatever — if it brings in revenue, I honestly don’t believe anyone cares,” Councillor Ford told reporters.

His comments come on the heels of a new report from staff, urging elected officials to come up with a list of properties that could be renamed to generate funds to fill the city’s $774-million budget hole. Some iconic buildings such as City Hall would be off limits, but Mayor Ford is generally in favour of the idea.

“We’ve got to take one name at a time. if you want to name a hockey arena, there’s nothing wrong with that. If you want to name a stadium, there’s nothing wrong with that,” he said, adding: “Sure, we’d look at” subway stations, too.

Ms. Stintz doesn’t see the transit agency changing station names completely, noting that the disability advisory committee says it’s important for stations to be named after intersections so that it’s easy to get around. But some sort of corporate sponsorship could go a long way toward renovating rundown stations the TTC does not have the cash to fix. Ms. Stintz said the TTC has been working with the Yonge and Dundas Business Improvement Area to see how the private sector could help spruce up the station. Ryerson University has expressed interest in some kind of naming rights, she said.

What about Spadina McDonald’s Station?

“We’re looking at all options because we do want to refurbish our stations and we know we’re going to need some help to do that,” she said. “It’s too early to say right now what that menu might look like.”

Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, a TTC commissioner, says it depends on the city asset, on who wants to be the sponsor, and how much money is on the table.

“I wouldn’t rename a public health office and let Viagra sponsor it, that would be completely inappropriate,” he said. But “if we can make all those [subway station] repairs and all we have to do is have an appropriate sponsor like Bombardier, I say why not. Let’s look at that.”

Councillor Joe Mihevc, a former TTC commissioner, disagrees. He does not think there is enough money in such a venture to warrant “corporatizing” public assets, noting it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to change signs and TTC literature.

“I’m not against naming some public assets,” he said, “but for large public spaces like parks and for subways, it really isn’t appropriate.”

A dozen city councillors will be in Halifax this weekend for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual conference, a taxpayer-funded trip Mayor Rob Ford used to lambaste as a councillor and won’t be making now.

In all, the city expects to spend about $34,000 to send Councillors Gloria Lindsay-Luby, Giorgio Mammoliti, Adam Vaughan, Joe Mihevc, Kristyn Wong-Tam, Pam McConnell, Mary Fragedakis, Paula Fletcher, Shelley Carroll, Michael Thompson, Norm Kelly and Ron Moeser to the annual “municipal expo,” which brings together politicians and civil servants from all levels of government to discuss some of the biggest issues facing cities and towns across the country.

This year’s event features keynote addresses by NDP leader Jack Layton, interim Liberal leader Bob Rae and Green Party leader Elizabeth May, and sessions on the cost of policing, using “municipal twinning” to spur economic growth and adapting to climate change.

“FCM has been instrumental in allowing the City of Toronto to generate the gas tax, the GST rebate, as well as many other initiatives have come through FCM, infrastructure funding and so on,” said Councillor Michael Thompson, who sits on FCM committees. “We need to be at the table as part of the discussion or debate that takes place.”

But Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday doesn’t believe there’s a need for 12 elected officials to make the trek. “Here we are telling everybody else to watch their dimes and quarters, to rein in spending. The optics of this are terrible,” he said. “In my next life I’m going to come back as a travel agent for the City of Toronto council.”

The current rules allow any councillor to expense their trip and registration to the annual FCM conference, something Mr. Holyday is hoping will change to once every four years under a revised policy that is being tweaked.

Mark Towhey, the Mayor’s director of policy, suggested that sending four representatives to this year’s event is more appropriate, noting that Councillors Mammoliti and McConnell are council’s representatives, and Councillors Thompson and Kelly are on the executive.

Still, Councillor Paula Fletcher extolled the virtues of an event she said allows city officials to learn about trends in other jurisdictions and bring ideas back.

“Some people might say it’s a waste of money, but I think if they don’t go they’re wasting their time and taxpayer dollars. Because you can put your head in a hole and not know anything, and say you’re saving money,” said Councillor Fletcher. “I think Toronto loses out when our Mayor doesn’t go to these types of events and present himself and our city’s position.”

Mr. Towhey said Mr. Ford is not attending because of various obligations, including constituency work, core service review and work on the budget. “[The Mayor] doesn’t feel the need to spend money to travel out there to do the things that he can pick up the phone and call somebody on,” said Mr. Towhey.

Tyler Anderson/National PostToronto city councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong rides a Bixi Bike during the launch of Bixi Toronto in 2011.

Comment

Monday night as I pedalled west on Harbord Street to meet Olivia Chow, a big flatbed truck with Quebec plates blocked the bike path; three workers unloaded 11 shiny new Bixi bicycles and clipped them into a 22-bike docking station, set up where four car parking spaces used to be, in front of the Munk Centre at the University of Toronto. It seemed an omen: the pinkos are taking over downtown.

As omens go, it was pretty much dead on: before the night was out, the New Democrats had swept through Toronto’s core, replacing Liberals with merlot-sipping, bike-riding socialists. The joy was short-lived, however, as the truth dawned on said lefties: that Stephen Harper, aided and abetted by Rob Ford, now has a majority Conservative government.

So the mood Tuesday morning in the rain, at the launch of Bixi on Gould Street, which Ryerson University has closed to traffic, could be called bittersweet. Yvonne Bambrick, former head of the Toronto Cyclists’ Union, who did as much as anybody to bring Bixi to Toronto, summed up the sentiment, saying, “After the events of last night, it’s nice to be here this morning.”

Bixi, in fact, offers us a chance to move beyond the stale old cars vs. bikes, right vs. left battles. There was Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong (Don Valley East) the card-carrying Conservative, gamely pedalling around on a Bixi for every TV station that wanted him. Mr. Minnan-Wong, when probed, confirmed that a year ago he voted against the city giving a $4.8-million loan guarantee, until 2020, to the Public Bike System Company, a non-profit controlled by Montreal’s parking authority. (The vote carried).

“But now that it’s here, you’ve gotta support it,” grinned Mr. Minnan-Wong, the chair of the public works committee who brought his own bike helmet to the launch.

Le tout Toronto was there; Sheldon Levy, the president of Ryerson, rubbed shoulders with councillors Mike Layton (Trinity-Spadina) and Joe Mihevc (St. Paul’s), who is a charter Bixi member. The launch was a true happening, a kind of impromptu social event featuring no cocktails, courtesy umbrellas from Telus and lots of Gore-Tex.

The bikes, meanwhile, built in Chicoutimi, Que., are fairly sweet. They have three speeds and easily adjustable seats, plus a flashing rear light powered by a dynamo in the front wheel, and a bell. The bikes are aluminum. The wiring, gears and other components are inside the frame and hubs, to keep out ice, rain and snow, explained Michel Philibert, a Bixi founder.

“The Paris bikes are made of steel,” he noted. “Paris has a lot of trouble with maintenance of its bikes.” He said Bixi removes its bikes from Montreal in winter, but plans to leave them out all year in Toronto’s more temperate climate. A one-year membership in Bixi here costs $95, plus tax. Non-members can purchase a 24-hour pass directly at the solar-powered station for $5 plus tax.

Will Bixi fly? Mr. Minnan-Wong has an idea to help it.

“My understanding is that Montreal had the separated bike lanes first and then Bixi, and that’s why there was pickup and it was successful there,” he said. “I plan to bring an omnibus bike report for downtown separated connected bike network to committee in June, and council in July.”

His network would link Sherbourne, Wellesley, Beverley and John streets to an East-West path on Richmond Street.

“It’s a recognition that cycling is a mode of transportation that is used by people in the city,” Mr. Minnan-Wong said. “On Richmond Street, even if you take out one lane you’re only removing 25% of the capacity.”

Peter J. Thompson/National PostThe value of David Miller’s endorsement is an open question.

Joe Pantalone doesn’t think lefty councillor Joe Mihevc’s endorsement of George Smitherman will impact his campaign. Which is odd, because he seems to think the endorsements of Stephen Lewis, Jack Layton and, as of Wednesday, David Miller will help him.

A 400-word press release that just landed in my inbox — subject line: “David Miller: Pantalone the ‘only candidate’ to build on progressive foundation. Pantalone: ‘Much accomplished — much to be done’ ” — suggests the Mayor Joe team is rather enthused about yesterday’s tall, formerly blond development.

Politics is politics, of course. Sometimes people don’t tell the whole truth. And you might very reasonably argue that Joe Mihevc is no Stephen Lewis, Jack Layton or David Miller, and you’d be quite right. But Mr. Pantalone also seems to want it known that he’s completely gutted that Mr. Mihevc didn’t support him. Not only was it a betrayal of the city, a sellout of his “progressive base” — as if that base was now somehow obliged to vote for Mayor George. But it was also a personal insult.

“He didn’t even give me the decency of a phone call, after all the years we’ve known each other,” said Mr. Pantalone. “I thought we were friends.”

Oh, pumpkin! There, there. He wasn’t your friend anyway, if he’d gang up on you with that awful Smitherman boy.

How much Mr. Miller’s endorsement is really worth is certainly an open question in a campaign that’s been all about scrubbing the city clean of his legacy. Mr. Pantalone has always stood alone in defending Mr. Miller. You’d have to be awfully dim to have been shocked at the endorsement, or to have approved of the Miller approach to municipal governance and been planning to vote for someone other than Mr. Pantalone.

There’s also the matter of whether anyone gives a darn about what Mr. Miller has to say anymore. Reports, based on an email apparently sent by Canadian Club of Toronto executive director Jennifer Koddermann, suggest an Oct. 13 luncheon speech by the outgoing Mayor was cancelled due to low ticket sales — which is to say 19 tickets.

“Mayor Miller’s office is in support of this decision and it is felt all around that perhaps with the mayoral elections the timing was not the best,” the email read, in part. Perhaps?

Miller-haters will have their pint of schadenfreude, but let’s face it: the personalities filing their endorsements this week matter far less than how surprising they are.

Mr. Mihevc could easily be the ideological apostate who gets the Anyone But Rob Ford movement going in earnest. He’s not the first to bemoan Mr. Ford’s “simple one-liners,” “angry persona” and “divisive disposition” — as he did in a mass e-mail this week — but he’s the first reasonably high-profile politician to publicly swallow his pride for what he believes is the greater good, even if the greater good is going to tinker with Transit City and cut taxes and spending.

That, in turn, can only ratchet up pressure on Mr. Pantalone, and on Rocco Rossi — having themselves warned of the horrors of a Ford mayoralty — to follow suit.